On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Sam TH wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:57:27PM +0400, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> 
> >  As for smartquotes problem: analysis is very funny. (Following text applies
> > to ISO-8859-1 encoding, not any cyrillic one).
> >  First, there are two sets of unicode symbols that are both "nice quotes":
> > (listed only left ones)
> > 
> > 0xab:LEFT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE QUOTATION MARK (aka "LEFT POINTING GUILLEMET")
> > 0x201c:LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK (aka "DOUBLE TURNED COMMA QUOTATION MARK")
> >  Counterparts are 0xbb and 0x201d
> > 
> >  From the names, it's obvious that the symbol in fonts shipped with AW ('<<')
> > is better characterised as "LEFT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE QUOTATION MARK" 
> > rather than  "DOUBLE TURNED COMMA QUOTATION MARK").
> >  
> >  While 0xab (0xbb) are present directly in charsets ISO8859-1 and cp1252
> > (windows encoding for latin1), 0x201c (0x201d) is not there, exactly:
> > 
> > 1) libiconv's iconv maps 0x201c to '"'
> > 2) glibc's iconv can't map 0x201c to anything.
> > 
> >  State after that patch:
> >  In first case (linking with libiconv) remapping to "nice" glyphs works
> > only when printing, the plain quotes are shown on the screen. 
> >  In second case, modifying remapGlyphsDefault (included in patch) makes "nice"
> > quotes to appear on screen and in printed version.
> > 
> >  I think that we should try to use 0xab and 0xbb instead of 0x201c/0x201d as
> > smartquotes. Does anyone knows why it wasn't chosen from first time? If there
> > was no reasonable reason for such choice, it may be wise idea to (try to)
> > switch to 0xab/0xbb as smartquotes.
> > 
> >  What do you think about all this?
> 
> Using << and >> as quotation marks is not a solution.  In the united
> states, where I believe a plurality of Abi users are from, such marks
> are practically unheard of.  

 When I started hacking AW, << and >> were used as smartquotes AFAIR. Also
I've just checked "bitstream charter"  and "goth" - the fonts shipped with AW,
- they only contain "<<" and ">>", so you seem to be wrong.

> However, I believe the rest of the patch worked entirely as expected.
> All of the ? went away, and were replaced by the proper quotes.  
> Therefore, the patch, with that one change, has been committed.  
> 
> However, didn't we used to display the curly quotes when smart quotes
> were enabled (prior to the current breakage)?  This no longer occurs.
> I, however, may have been hallucinating when I remembered this.  

 I have a very strong impression that you have been hallucinating :)

> Bill, as the author, what should be happening here?
> 
> Fix Smart Quotes bug.  Does this actually restore the correct behvior?  From Vlad, 
>with changes by Sam.
 What changes did you introduce?

PS: I'm going to sleep as usual, so I will be able to read and post in 12
hours.

 Best regards,
  -Vlad




Reply via email to